Yerramalla Sadguna Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ §©þÿÿÿ¥¦ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿(‚bjbjqPqP ;o::byqTÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤ÖÖÖ"ø(ððð8(œÄ<(ÓXX"......RXTXTXTXTXTXTX$+Zh"\†xXo..ooxX..X·#·#·#o®..RX·#oRX·#·#Ž8/°1⁄40.€¤"Œî§Ðð!Nè/.X$ 1⁄401⁄40¦]b1Ì&.1⁄4ꆷ#plÜ"...xXxXY#^...ÓXoooo(((,Ä(((,(((ÿÿÿÿTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 631 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2010 in Sessions Case No.
429 of 2004 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this case may be delineated as follows: One Bobbati Pedda Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was working as a Mandal Education Officer, Alampur, whereas the accused was working as a teacher at the relevant point of incident at Maramunagala Morsu village in Panchayat Raj department. PW5 is the wife and PW6 is the son of the deceased. On 20.11.
2003 at about 1.00 p.m., the accused went to the office of Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO), Alampur and asked the deceased as to what he has done with regard to his leave application. Then, the accused replied that he was busy with the preparation of bill and that he can discuss later on with regard to his leave application. Upon which, the deceased took an axe from the umbilical portion of abdomen and hit on the head and right side of the neck of the deceased with an axe causing bleeding injuries. PW1 was working as MPDO, Alampur, and she was not admittedly present at the time of incident and who came to know about the incident, shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Alampur.
After first aid, the doctors advised to take the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, wherein the doctors on examining the deceased, found that he was brought dead. Then, PW1 lodged a complaint with the police, Alampur at about 3.00 p.m. on the same day. Basing on the complaint, PW12 registered the same as a case in Crime No.89 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. PW12 sent Ex.P.9 - original FIR to the Court and informed the registration of the case to the Inspector of Police.
PW13, who was working as Inspector of Police, took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, got photographed the scene of occurrence, observed the scene of occurrence, seized the incriminating articles found at the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. On 21.11.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., the accused surrendered before the police and produced an axe from his waist which was tied with an elastic band, and the same was seized. The material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The dead body was also subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of fracture on base of skull and other fractures on the head.
After completion of investigation, PW13 filed the Charge sheet into the Court. 3. The trial Court framed the following Charge against the accused: "That, you on or about 20-11-2003 at 1300 hours, at Mandal Parishad Office, Alampur, committed the murder intentionally causing the death of Bobbati Pedda Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, Mandal Education Officer, Alampur, by hitting him with an axe thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance." When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 18. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence either oral or documentary. 6. The trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, came to a conclusion that the accused axed the deceased with an axe on the head and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the accused. 7. The points for determination are: "Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant/accused and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?" 8.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused contended that there was no motive for the accused in committing the murder of the deceased; that it is not a pre-planned murder; that as per the evidence of PW4, the incident has taken place upon a sudden fight and upon a sudden quarrel; that if the deceased was immediately shifted to the hospital after the incident, there was a possibility of his survival and because of the delay in shifting him to the hospital, the death has taken place; that the appellant has no intention to kill the deceased, but he had a same grievance against the Head Master; that the facts of the case would go to show that it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, the case of the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.
and he also relied upon various decisions with regard to this aspect. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana contended that PWs 2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and their presence at the time of incident has been established beyond all reasonable doubt; that since PWs 2 to 4 are working in the office of M.P.D.O. and the incident has taken place in the broad daylight i.e. about 1.00 p.m.
, the presence of these witnesses cannot be doubted; that the medical evidence would clearly go to show that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries and fractures sustained by him and those injuries are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature; that the trial Court, on elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and that order needs no interference by this Court. 10. Points: PW10 - one of the inquest mediators, who was present when PW13 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, found certain injuries on the head. Ex.P.7 is the Inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of head injuries. The opinion of mediators remained unchallenged.
After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 11. PW14 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, found the following ante mortem injuries: 1. Cut laceration present over right parietal area of size 6 x 2 cms extending from vertex, red in colour, margins irregular. 2. Cut laceration, vertical present over right temporal area extending up to the middle of ear of size 10 x 4 cm bone deep, red in colour, margins irregular. 3. Cut laceration present over right parieto temporal area up to the upper part of ear of size 8 x 2 cms, red in colour, margins irregular. 4. Cut laceration, vertical from middle of the right ear up to the neck of size 4 x 3 cm x muscle deep, red in colour, margins irregular. 5.
Cut laceration present over outer aspect of left frontal area of size 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep, red in colour, margins irregular. 6. Right temporal bone fractured with pieces of bones driven into the brain effecting laceration of meninges. 7. Cut fracture of right parietal bone. 8. Laceration of right temporal with lobe with subdural hemorrhage extending all over the brain with clots at base of brain. 9. Fracture of base of skull in middle cranial forsa. The doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge is head injury and the approximate time of death is about 12 to 24 hours prior to his post-mortem examination, and the injuries noticed by him on the head could be possible with a weapon like MO1 axe. Ex.P.13 is the post-mortem examination report.
In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW13 and the recitals in Ex.P.13, except giving a suggestion that at the instance of PW6, who is the son of the deceased, he is deposing false. Therefore, the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. Now, it has to be seen whether the appellant/accused is the assailant of the deceased or not? PW1 is the person who lodged a report with regard to the death of the deceased to PW12 by giving Ex.P.1. Admittedly, though she was present on the date of incident, she went to a function at the time of incident and returned back at about 1.00 p.m., and came to know about the incident.
Therefore, except setting the criminal law into motion, she is not an eyewitness to the incident and she came to know about the incident through somebody. But, her evidence would clearly go to show that the body of the deceased was found lying on the chair in her office i.e. M.P.D.O., Alampur. She is the person who took the body of the deceased in the jeep being driven by PW7 at the first instance to Government hospital, Alampur where the duty doctor gave first aid and advised PW1 and others to shift to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and accordingly, she took the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool where the doctors after examination declared brought dead. 13. There is no dispute about the scene of occurrence. PW9 is one of the mediators who was present at the scene of occurrence and he was the scribe. Ex.P.
6 is the crime detailed form which shows about the details of the scene of occurrence. Similarly, PW8 is the photographer who had taken the photographs Ex.P.4 which are the positive photographs with corresponding negatives showing the scene of occurrence. Ex.P.5 is the bunch of positive photographs with corresponding negatives relating to the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, there is no dispute about the observation of scene of occurrence by PW9 and scribing of Ex.P.6 crime detailed form. 14. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. They are totally independent witnesses.
against the accused. At the relevant point of time, PW2 was working as Junior Assistant, whereas PW3 was working as Extension Officer and PW4 was working as Senior Assistant in the office of M.P.D.O., Alampur. Since it is a working day, their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted unless contrary is proved. There is no such contra evidence. Further, they were examined during the course of inquest which was conducted on the same day from 4.00 to 6.00 p.m. Therefore, even four hours after the incident, the names of these witnesses were found place in the inquest report. Further, there is no other reason to doubt their presence at the time of incident. Similarly, it is not shown that these witnesses PWs 2 to 4 had entertained any motive or enmity against the accused so as to implicate him in a case of this nature.
Their evidence is very clear that on the date of incident, the accused went to the office of M.P.D.O. of PW1 and questioned the deceased as to why he did not deal with his leave application, for which the deceased replied that he was busy with preparing the bill and it can be discussed later. On that, the accused took out an axe from umbilical portion of abdomen and hit on the head and neck of the deceased, as a result the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the accused left the place by carrying the axe with him.
Nothing has been elicited from these witnesses to discredit their testimony in view of the fact that their presence at the time of incident has been established and there is every possibility for them to identify the accused who is known to them since he was also working as a teacher in the same Mandal, and the accused is not a stranger to these witnesses. In the entire crossexamination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited so as to doubt their evidence. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who carried axe with him and caused injuries on the head and neck of the deceased. 15. From the evidence of PW13, it is also established that MO1 was used in the commission of offence, because as seen from Ex.P.12, MO1 contained 'O' group blood.
The clothes of the deceased were also subjected to the examination by the Serologist. The clothes of the deceased viz., white colour terry cotton half sleeved shirt and white colour sleeved banian contained bloodstains of 'O' group. Therefore, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that MO1 axe was used in the commission of offence which incriminates against the accused for the reason he produced the weapon when he surrendered before the police from his waist which was tied with an elastic band. Concealment of weapon of offence is exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW13 coupled with the evidence of mediator PW11, it is clear that MO1 was produced by the accused.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused is the assailant of the deceased by causing injuries with MO1 axe. The medical evidence supports the case of ocular evidence as the doctor has specifically stated that the injuries noticed by him in Ex.P.13 can be caused by a weapon like MO1. 17. Now, it has to be seen whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. or not as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant or it amounts to a culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 I.P.C. For invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C.
, it must be shown that it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder; there must be a sudden fight; in the sudden fight, without any pre-meditation; upon sudden quarrel, the accused caused injury; the accused has not taken any undue advantage of the situation; and the accused must not have acted in a cruel manner. These aspects have been clearly stated by various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. In a decision reported in Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Paras 6 and 7 as under: "6.
Exception 4 to Section 300 reads as under: Exception 4 : Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken under advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner: Explanation: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. 7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight ; (ii) there was no premeditation ; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion ; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault.
The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly. In the present case, the deceased and PW 2 had entered the room occupied by Sikander Lal and his family members and had demanded vacant possession of the kitchen.
When they found that the appellant was disinclined to handover possession of the kitchen, PW 2 quarrelled and uttered filthy abuses in the presence of the appellant's sister. On the appellant asking him to desist he threatened to lock up the kitchen by removing the utensils, etc., and that led to a heated argument between the appellant on the one side and PW 2 and his deceased brother on the other. In the course of this heated argument it is the appellant's case that PW 2 took out a knife from his pant pocket. This part of the appellant's case seems to be probable having regard to the antecedents of PW 2. It is on record that PW 2 was convicted at Narnaul on two occasions under Section 411, IPC and his name was registered as a bad character at the local police station.
It was presumably because of this reason that he had shifted from Narnaul to Chandigarh a couple of years back and had started to live in the premises rented by PW 4. When the appellant found that PW 2 had taken out a pen knife from his pocket he went into the adjoining kitchen and returned with a knife. From the simple injury caused to PW 2 it would appear that PW 2 was not an easy target. That is why the learned Sessions Judge rejected the case that Amrit Lal had held PW 2 to facilitate an attack on him by the appellant. It further seems that thereafter a scuffle must have ensued on Nitya Nand intervening to help his brother PW 2 in which two minor injuries were suffered by the deceased on the left arm before the fatal blow was inflicted on the left flank at the level of the 5th rib about 2" below the nipple.
It may incidentally be mentioned that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the injury found on the neck of PW 2 was a self-inflicted wound and had therefore acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307, IPC. against which no appeal was carried. We have, however, proceeded to examine this matter on the premise that PW 2 sustained the injury in the course of the incident. From the above facts, it clearly emerges that after PW 2 and his deceased brother entered the room of the appellant and uttered filthy abuses in the presence of the latter's sister, tempers ran high and on PW 2 taking out a pen knife the appellant picked up the knife from the kitchen, ran towards PW 2 and inflicted a simple injury on his neck.
It would be reasonable to infer that the deceased must have intervened on the side of his brother PW 2 and in the course of the scuffle he received injuries, one of which proved fatal. Taking an over all view of the incident we are inclined to think that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception relied upon. The High Court refused to grant him that benefit on the ground that he had acted in a cruel manner but we do not think that merely because three injuries were caused to the deceased it could be said that he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Under these circumstances, we think it proper to convict the accused under Section 304, Part I, IPC and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years." In a decision reported in Mahesh Vs. State of M.P.
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para 4 as under: "From a perusal of the evidence, we find that when the appellant arrived along with the cattle at the field there was no premeditation for the assault. At the spot, there was an altercation between the parties and in the sudden fight, after the deceased objected to the grazing of the cattle, when possibly hot words or even abuses were exchanged between the parties, the appellant gave a single blow with the pharsa on the head of the deceased. The statement of the appellant and the suggestions given on his behalf to the prosecution witnesses that there was an attempt to assault the deceased with a Parena, which was with the deceased, does not appear to be improbable.
Thus, placed as the appellant and the deceased were at the time of the occurrence, it appears to us that the appellant assaulted the deceased in that sudden fight and after giving him one blow took to his heals. He did not cause any other injury to the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that he acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Admittedly, he did not assault PW-2 or PW-6 who were also present also with the deceased and who had also requested the appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the field of PW-1. This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation.
In this fact situation, we are of the opinion that Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty would squarely fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. The trial court, under the circumstances, was justified in convicting him for the said offence and the High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in interfering with it and that too without dispelling any of the reasons given by the trial court. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside and instead convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC." In a decision reported in Sukhbir Singh Vs.
State of Haryana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para 17 as under: "To avail the benefit of Exception 4, the defence is required to probabilise that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the of fender had not taken any undue advantage and the offender had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The exception is based upon the principle that in the absence of premeditation and on account of total deprivation of self control but on account of heat of passion, the offence was committed which, normally a man of sober urges would not resort to.
not defined under the Act, implies mutual provocation. It has been held by courts that a fight is not per se palliating circumstance and only unpremeditated fight is such. The time gap between quarrel and the fight is an important consideration to decide the applicability of the incident. If there intervenes a sufficient time for passion to subside, giving the accused time to come to normally and the fight takes place there after, the killing would be murder but if the time gap is not sufficient, the accused may be held entitled to the benefit of this exception." In a decision reported in Ghapoo Yadav and others Vs. State of M.P., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para 10 as under: "The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight.
The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation.
In fact Exception 4 deals with case in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of quilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could be whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed.
It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other hand not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight: (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two or make a fight.
Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4. It is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'."
In a decision reported in K.Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para 16 as under: "Keeping in view the approach of this Court for giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code in cases mentioned above and applying the same to the facts of this case, we are inclined to give benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code to the Appellant by altering his sentence awarded to the Appellant punishable Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. This we say so in the facts of this case for more than one reason. Firstly, even according to the prosecution, there was no premeditation in the commission of crime.
Secondly, there is not even a suggestion or we may say conclusive evidence that the Appellant had any pre-determined motive or enmity to commit the offence against the deceased leave alone a serious offence like murder. Thirdly, incident that occurred was due to sudden quarrel which ensued between the Appellant-accused and the deceasedPadma on the issue of going to village Mandya to see the ailing Appellant's father. The Appellant, on receiving this news, had become upset and, therefore, his insistence to see his ailing father immediately was natural and at the same time, Padma's refusal to leave could lead to heated exchange of words between them. True, it is that it reached to its extreme inasmuch as the Appellant in heated exchange of words lost his mental balance and poured kerosene on Padma setting her to burn.
However, the fact remains that it was an outcome of sudden outburst and heated exchange with no predetermined motive per se to kill her. Fourthly, no conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in the last 9 long years between the couple and that too for a cause known to others which could lead to killing Padma or whether any unsuccessful attempt was ever made by the Appellant to kill her in past and lastly, we have not been able to see from the postmortem report that any stab injury on Padma's body was caused nor prosecution was able to prove that any blood stained knife from the place of occurrence was recovered at the instance of the Appellant or of any witness." 18.
Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the case of the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. or not. Only one witness i.e. PW1 has stated that a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused and in that quarrel, the accused attacked the deceased with an axe. The nature of quarrel and whether the deceased provoked the accused or not, have not been stated by this witness. PW3 simply stated that the accused came and hacked the deceased. Whereas, PW2 stated that when the accused asked the deceased as to what he has done with regard to his leave application, for which the deceased replied that he was busy with the preparation of bill and upon which, the accused grew wild, took out the axe from his waist and hacked the deceased.
If really, the incident had taken place upon a sudden fight and upon a sudden quarrel, he would have picked up a weapon in the office itself and there is no need for him to carry the weapon with him from the place of his working to the place of M.P.D.O. office. Therefore, the accused has taken undue advantage of the situation and hacked the deceased with an axe indiscriminately resulting injuries on left and right temporal and frontal, and themid-line of skull have been broken into pieces. Unless the force used by the accused is so severe, those fractures would not have been caused. 19.
It may be a fact that the accused might not have entertained an intention to kill the deceased, but he must have knowledge that when he used such a force with a dangerous weapon causing the skull broken into pieces, it would certainly give the deadly result. A man is presumed to know the consequences of his acts. If a person beat with a weapon like an axe on the head with such a severe force, certainly it would give deadly result. Therefore, it can be said that it is a case where the accused was having a knowledge that his acts would in all probability cause the death of the deceased, thereby the offence falls under Section 300 I.P.C. but not any one of the exceptions, particularly Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C.
Therefore, after considering all these facts, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and that reasoned order needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. ----------------------- (K.C. BHANU, J) ----------------------- (ANIS, J) 09.06.2015 Anr (1989) 2 S.C.C. 217 (1996) 10 S.C.C. 668 (2002) 3 S.C.C. 327 (2003) 3 S.C.C. 528 (2015) 2 S.C.C. 638 PAGE PAGE 17 KCB, J. & ANIS, J. Crl.Appeal No. 631 of 2010 !47@DEY\bdmnpqr...
- ̃TM°±ïßïÏïÏÀ®ŸŸ®}n_n_PÀPÀLÀ@hc>WCJOJQJaJhühFy"hiqCJOJQJaJhFy"h#C3CJOJQJaJhFy"h*CJOJQJaJ"hFy"h70o5>*CJOJQJaJhv ù X'vÀH'"úøðæßÚÓËÉ··° „ЄÐdð]„Ð^„Ðgdr<„ЄÐdð]„Ð^„Ðgd R¤ðgds" „Фð`„Ðgd¿^ ̄¤xgds"dðgd`SĤðgd#C3dð¤hgd¿^ ̄ dà¤xgd/u$dàa$$a$bÓ'‚ýýý±2 0 1 2 3 6 8 M P W X d e g h k l t u ° ± 2 1⁄4 Í ñâÖâñÊ»¬Ê»ÊÊÊŽŽŽ¬Ê‚¬ÊvgXhFy"hü„CJOJQJaJhFy"hFWCJOJQJaJh»öCJOJQJaJhÞW‡CJOJQJaJhFy"hqèCJOJQJaJhFy"hð8kCJOJQJaJhFy"hC¡CJOJQJaJhFy"hBöCJOJQJaJh ̄{%CJOJQJa CJOJQJaJhFy"hKuÑCJOJQJaJhFy"hüCJOJQJaJÍ × ã å ç N O P Q R S Š " › 1⁄2 ð ÷ ø ù WXYû>@\pñåÖåÖÇåÇåÇåÇåÇ ̧Çå¬å ̈¤•‰•}qeYeMhh@CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhL1⁄4CJOJQJaJhè·CJOJQJaJh'NCJOJQJaJh1 CJOJQJaJhFy"hüCJOJQJaJh`SÄhð8khO ÆCJOJQJaJhFy"hWÀCJOJQJaJhFy"h`vCJOJQJaJhFy"hób®CJOJQJaJhœZ1⁄2CJOJQJaJhFy"hôIÓCJOJQJaJp'"Ðú 0 8 Q ] " £ á í ñ ô õ (/:B ÂÃÌþ&'0<È uôèÜÐÄÐ ̧Ð ̧ЬР̧Ð " ˆ| ̧|pÄ" ̧Ä ̧Ä ̧Ä ̧ÄdXhDüCJOJQJaJh†^'CJOJQJaJh ̃1ÆCJOJQJaJhbóCJOJQJaJhi CJOJQJaJh ̄)äCJOJQJaJh.
^CJOJQJaJhÅJÂCJOJQJaJh2¡CJOJQJaJhŸKbCJOJQJaJh...QCJOJQJaJhzjCJOJQJaJh 3øCJOJQJaJhTMA"CJOJQJaJ"uvüqrÂÃ/R&GÑñ+,EFIôèôÜÐÄ ̧¬ ̧ ¬"¬ˆyj[L=L=LhFy"h‡þCJOJQJaJhFy"h ̃CJOJQJaJhFy"hüCJOJQJaJhFy" (,JLNabhik„'"• ̃TMœÔÖ>ôèÙÊ3⁄4Ê ̄Ê«§Ê›Ê›ŒÊ}Ê}›ÊnÊbÊ}ÊSÊŒ›ŒhFy"hr<CJOJQJaJhóy×CJOJQJaJhFy"h-CJOJQJaJhFy"hM|CJOJQ RCJOJQJaJh ́~úCJOJQJaJ " ̃TMÃ'(M#$ ̧)"*"6"»#$$øðîðéâÝÔÀ ́ ̄â ̈ ̈šŒ $„¤ð^„a$gd ̧|J $„¤x^„a$gdP·¤ðgd ̧|Jgd[6TM„Cdh]„CgdCë„C„C„ÿdh]„C^„C`„ÿgd0Æ„^„gd0Ædð¤ðgdIn#gdZ+dðgdr<¤ðgdFy">?@Bmyˆ1⁄4¿ÁÃÆ×®ÈËÌîô&'(+'Ø"#'WôèôÙÊÙ3⁄4ÙÊÙ ̄ è è" è ̄...
v j v[Oh LCJOJQJaJhFy"hCëCJOJQJaJhŒI}CJOJQJaJhFy"h6B8CJOJQJaJhFy"hüCJOJQJaJh/kâCJOJQJaJhFy"hÎH*CJOJQJaJhFy"hZ+CJOJQJaJh‹NÂCJOJQJaJ ́μ¶· ̧o»÷ AC¬ôèÜôÜÐÜÄÐÄÐÄÜμ¦- ˆyj[O[CÐChÁCJOJQJaJhÝw¬CJOJQJaJhFy"hŠÍCJOJQJaJhFy"h...!üCJOJQJaJhFy"hFcGCJOJQJaJhFy"hCëCJOJQJaJhFy"hŸN‚CJOJQJaJhFy"h#CJOJQJaJhFy"hš^CJOJQJaJhGJCJOJQJaJhjA-CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh LCJOJQJaJhxYûCJOJQJaJ¬21×Þê+ , 5 Ô â ÷ !!"›!!(")"*"."3"4"7";"="Z"[" ̈"©"#A#r#o#ôèôèôèôèôÜôÜôÜôÜôÐÄÐ2 '...y...y...y...
̃CJOJQJaJh¬\ÑCJOJQJaJh×CJOJQJaJhgd&CJOJQJaJhFy"hˆWECJOJQJaJ"hFy"h'R5>*CJOJQJaJ"hFy"hˆWE5>*CJOJQJaJh¿^ ̄CJOJQJaJhÊo'CJOJQJaJhjACJOJQJaJhÁCJOJQJaJhÝ ̃CJOJQJaJ!o#»#Ñ#Ò#ø#ù#$$>$¡$¢$©$¬$%%G%H%P%›%Û%Ü%ä%n&v&y&ø&ù&' ̃' 'T(~ (Ž())v)ôèÜèÐèÄ ̧è¬ ̧ " ̧¬ˆ| p|p|d|pdpdXÐXÐXh ̃8CJOJQJaJh-CJOJQJaJhÂmÖCJOJQJaJhk7 ̃CJOJQJaJhÜ> [CJOJQJaJhï_ ̄CJOJQJaJh6.»CJOJQJaJhq<åCJOJQJaJhî0aCJOJQJaJhWâCJOJQJaJhn`CJOJQJaJht5¿CJOJQJaJh¬\ÑCJOJQJaJhêM $„¤x^„a$gdÜÉ $„¤ð^„a$gd ̧|J $„¤x^„a$gdP·$„8„Èû¤x^„8`„Èûa$gdÂmÖ$„8„Èû¤x^„8`„Èûa$gdq<å$„8„ ̃þ¤x^„8`„ ̃þa$gdmÏv)¦)§)**ó*÷*V+Z+h+3⁄4+--%-&-.- b.
//4/3/μ/d0e0B1C1Á1Æ1ôèÜÐÜÄ ̧¬ ¬"ˆ"ˆ"ˆ|pd ̧d dXdLh1⁄2:- CJOJQJaJh=`ÇCJOJQJaJh ̈eÚCJOJQJaJhà<oCJOJQJaJhN$úCJOJQJaJhü#ÄCJOJQJaJhÈ*ZCJOJQJaJhÎ.)CJOJQJaJhLTÀCJOJQJaJ ́8»8ï8ð8.929b:f:œ:Æ:Ð: ;;;&;x;';';Ó;Õ;m<o<'<=Y=ôèôÜèÜÐÜÄèÄ ̧Ä ̧Ä ̧Ä¬Ä¬Ä "ˆ|ˆ| ̧| ˆp|p|p ̧pd ̧hV<}CJOJQJaJhõCJOJQJaJh=`ÇCJOJQJaJh(šCJOJQJaJh38 CJOJQJaJh8*fCJOJQJaJh1<CJOJQJaJhÆ]õCJOJQJaJhi CJOJQJaJh·NCJOJQJaJhŽüCJOJQJaJh&«CJOJQJaJhPDÍCJOJQJaJ'Y=^=l===?\?^?r?y?À?Ô?ì?Ì@Í@áAâAãAýAB.
BNBbBiBkB1T4TôèôèôÜÐÜÐÜÄÐÄ ̧Ĭ "‡s g [TPhaxh"q¿haxhaxCJOJQJaJh»wCCJOJQJaJ&jh3m†0J6CJOJQJUaJh%X}6CJOJQJaJ ́CJOJQJaJh(hxCJOJQJaJh;>CJOJQJaJhV<}CJOJQJaJiBTMBŒCùC4T§Ta\]šabÒmîÞÞÞË3¡ˆv]$„Z„X„xdð¤ð] „Z^„X`„xa$gd"q¿$„„Фh^„`„Ða$gd"q¿$ ÆX„Y„Ydð¤ð]„Y^„Ya$gd"q¿$„„Фh^„`„Ða$gd9S2$ Æ ̃„Z„X„ ̈ý]„Z^„X`„ ̈ýa$gd"q¿$ Æð„dà] „a$gd¥B†$„X„X]„X^„Xa$gdax„X„X„ ̈ý]„X^„X`„ ̈ýgdax 4T=TWTqTrTtTyT›TœT¥T¦T§T3T ́TUU#Z&Z3⁄4ZÂZ\\- \š\§\©\Ä\è\é\ê\]ôèÛÇ» ̄è ̄è ̄£Ÿ›""‰"‰"‰"‰"›}p\P}h[)ûCJOJQJaJ&jh[)û0J6CJOJQJUaJh¶@%6CJOJQJaJh'z|CJOJQJaJh"q¿h"q¿hUzh"q¿ ]TMa ́aÌaÑaÞaßab bbb6b9bQjTjÑmÒmìmnnHn¡n¤n;o>oo°o$t*tŠv‹vvww_w„wÉwôèÜèÜèØèË3⁄4Ëaèôèô¦¢¦¢¦èôËaô¦¢¦¢¦¢¦›¦èƒwƒwƒh ́W ̃CJOJQJaJh:CgCJOJQJaJh ̄ŠCJOJQJaJh?
ˆ6]h"q¿h?ˆ&jh?ˆ0J6CJOJQJUaJh[)û6CJOJQJaJh?ˆ6CJOJQJaJh[)ûh'z|CJOJQJaJh[)ûCJOJ -ŒŒŒyydðgd¢Ò $dða$gd¢Ò $dða$gd¢Ò$a$gdFy" $dða$gdOQ $„¤ð^„a$gdÜÉ $„¤ð^„a$gd ̧|J $„¤h^„a$gd×H.$„Z„X„xdð¤ð] „Z^„X`„xa$gd"q¿$„„Фh^„`„Ða$gd"q¿ Éwxx#xDyJy!zGzPzSzdzmzzQ{U{]{^{b{c{f{g{j{k{o{÷{ü{-|®|ç|ë|]}`}~.~ôèÜôÜôÐÄÐ ̧Ä ̧¬ ¬"¬ˆ¬|¬Ü| ¬p¬d¬d¬d¬d¬h†^ëCJOJQJaJh&CJOJQJaJha+WCJOJQJaJh§KîCJOJQJaJh ¶CJOJQJaJhH1⁄2CJOJQJaJhÎv`CJOJQJaJhu... CJOJQJaJh_r?CJOJQJaJh6 ßCJOJQJaJh×H.CJOJQJaJh ́W ̃CJOJQJaJh/]°CJOJQJaJ",.
èêëìíîïñ€%€p€q€‰€Ì€)7BDEGKôèôÜÐÄ ̧¬ ̃ˆysdXdXdL=LdhFy"hxSˆCJOJQJaJhvBACJOJQJaJhFy"CJOJ hGCJhFy"hGCJOJQJaJhò uOJQJhìAOJQJh&OJQJh ̧|JCJOJQJaJhü#ÄCJOJQJaJh ̈eÚCJOJQJaJhi CJOJQJaJh38 CJOJQJaJh(šCJOJQJaJhk,¤CJOJQJaJh 2<CJOJQJaJKLMPbcdwxyŽ'¤¥¦§o»1⁄41⁄2ÑÒÓÔÖ×ÙÚÜÝßàæçèêëñòôåÞÑÇû°ÇÃ¥ÇûšÇûÇû‹ƒ‹ƒ‹ƒ‹ƒ‹ysysÃysy hÔÿ0JjhÔÿ0JUjhpUhph?
ˆhÔÿmH @sH @h[)ûhÔÿmH @sH @h(]ïhÔÿmH @sH @h3m†hÔÿmH @sH @hÔÿmH @sH @hÔÿjhÔÿ0JUh†^ë5CJOJQJaJhFy"h¢ÒhFy"h¢ÒCJOJQJaJhvBACJOJQJaJ(MQSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abx¥»ÒÓÕÖØÙ÷ïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïíííííëëëëë$a ‚$‚%‚&‚'‚(‚ýýýýôòýôíííýýå$a$gdó;‹$a$„üÿ„&`#$òôõö%‚&‚'‚(‚ôêäÞÚÖÉh†^ë5CJOJQJaJhphÔÿ hÔÿCJ hÔÿ0JjhÔÿ0JUh§Kî0JmHnHu9 0&P1h:p3m†°Ò/ °ÃN!°p"°p#p$p%°°Ð°ÐІœ@@ñÿ@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <@< Heading 1$@&CJPJB@B Heading 2$$@&a$CJPJDA@òÿ¡DDefault Paragraph FontVióÿ3VTable Normal :Vö4Ö4Ö laö(kôÿÁ(No List>B@ò> Body Text$dàa$CJ>@> Footnote TextCJaJ@&@¢@Footnote ReferenceH*4@"4Header ÆàÀ!.)@¢1.Page Number4 @B4Footer ÆàÀ!6P@R6Body Text 2CJRR@bR!
WBody Text Indent 2„hdà¤x^„h>>@r>ÎH*Title$a$5CJOJQJ\N^@‚NaxNormal (Web)¤d¤d[$\$mH @sH @tH @4U@¢'4ax Hyperlink >*phÿ-:qLèTÞYf(z-CYps(zoÿÿÿÿ#'Ee ̃TMøùX'vÀ H '" ̃TMÃ'(M#$ ̧)*6»$¢HÜnùo ̃ T ó"0'Â)b2Z57â9i:TM:Œ;ù;4L§LaTUšYZÒeHf‹nøsïwqx‰xÜxÝxÞxöxAyByMyQySyTyUyVyWyXyYyZy[y\y]y^y_y`yaybyxyy¥y»yÒyÓyÕyÖyØy z$z%z&z)z0€€0€€ ̃0€€0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0 ̃TM6â9i:TM:Œ;ù;4L§LaTUšYZÒeHf‹nqx)zKˆ00gá0Kˆ001⁄4R°Kˆ00€Kˆ00 €Kˆ00Kˆ00 •ÙKÈ00ÈKÈ00ÈKÈ00€@2hKÈ00€Kˆ00€KÈ00Kˆ00€Kˆ00€KÈ00KÈ00IÈ00KÈ00KÈ00š€€ SSSSSV±Í puI>W¬o#v)Æ1Y=4T]ÉwKò(‚BEFGHIKLMNPQRTUWXY\"$$iBÒmMÙ(‚CJOSVZ['‚D!V!•!Tÿ•€ÿÿ »~dÌ...
1⁄4~ dÆ...1⁄2~$Æ...3⁄4~ ¤É... ¿~¤Ê...À~äÇ...Á~$È...Â~äÊ...Ã~dË...Ä~¤Ë...Å~äË...Æ~äÈ...Ç~$Ì...DDO¤·ÁÁ‰C‰C-L UZ6f)z NWW¶¿ÈÈ"C"CšLUZ:f)z =*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€Z*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/V *€urn:schemas-microsoftcom:office:smarttags€place€http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€ ̈1ì y€-ü¤°21⁄4]dej® ́ÈÏ#/05AJKN×ÝÞæ »ÂY`ÁÈHO| ‚ ƒ ‹ " › Õ Ü Ý â í ó û ...‰òøüÿ!$11⁄4eh‡-3u|μ ̧ÁÇSYÞäemÏ×M R -%%"&)&-&ž&ë&ò&ñ)ô))+0+7-:- ï0õ01⁄41¿1...3‹3¶31⁄43Å3Ë3ý9:#:-:3:::Q:V:C<D<Ù?á?â?å?ÀBÇB~C...
C‰C"CE E E EŒE'E'EExLLMNSNOOÄTËTáTèTïTöTIUPU`UkU ́YoY»YÀYåYìYìeòeffÄiÉiëiñi¶j1⁄2j"kTMkm mÔmÛmMyPybyÓyÓyÕyÕyÖyÖyØyÙyÛyÜyÞyßy zz&z)zð ‹"ˆ'‹' 22::£:¦:V<]<?
=B=UG\GWLaLÌTÕTÌYÏYé_ð_„bˆbŽd±dóeüeÉo:pVsosûuv%xpxbyÓyÓyÕyÕyÖyÖyØyÙyÛyÜyÞyßy&z)z33333333333333333333ôõÂÃþþ z z zz$z)zbyÓyÓyÕyÕyÖyÖyØyÙyÛyÜyÞyßy&z)zú:ZéfVÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ= Fö€>ÂÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿMF„RèÚÜÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÏke8& ̈LÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿwÁv[ðÃÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ)„Ø „ ̃þÆØ ^„Ø `„ ̃þ.„p„ ̃þÆp^„p`„ ̃þ. „@„ ̃þÆ@^„@`„ ̃þ.„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ.„à„ ̃þÆà^„à`„ ̃þ.„°„ ̃þÆ°^„°`„ ̃þ.„€„ ̃þÆ€^„€`„ ̃þ.„P„ ̃þÆP^„P`„ ̃þ.„8„ ̃þÆ8^„8`„ ̃þo()„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þCJo(()‚„Ø „LÿÆØ ^„Ø `„Lÿ.€„ ̈„ ̃þÆ ̈^„ ̈`„ ̃þ.€„x„ ̃þÆx^„x`„ ̃þ.‚„H„LÿÆH^„H`„Lÿ.€„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ.€„è„ ̃þÆè^„è`„ ̃þ.‚„ ̧„LÿÆ ̧^„ ̧`„Lÿ.„„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þo()€„Ø „ ̃þÆØ ^„Ø `„ ̃þ.‚„ ̈„LÿÆ ̈^„ ̈`„Lÿ.
€„x„ ̃þÆx^„x`„ ̃þ.€„H„ ̃þÆH^„H`„ ̃þ.‚„„LÿÆ^„`„Lÿ.€„è„ ̃þÆè^„è`„ ̃þ.€„ ̧„ ̃þÆ ̧^„ ̧`„ ̃þ.‚„ˆ„Lÿƈ^„ˆ`„Lÿ.„î„zþÆî^„î`„zþo(.€ „ „ ̃þÆ ^„ `„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„ ̃þÆ@^„@`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„ ̃þÆ°^„°`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „€„ ̃þÆ€^„€`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P`„Lÿ‡hˆH.„À„ ̃þÆÀ^„À`„ ̃þCJOJQJo(.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „` „LÿÆ` ^„` `„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „0„ ̃þÆ0^„0`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „ЄLÿÆÐ^„Ð`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „ „ ̃þÆ ^„ `„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „p„ ̃þÆp^„p`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „@„LÿÆ@^„@`„Lÿ‡hˆH.ú:ˆ2ì þMF„R= FwÁvÏkeÿÿÿÿ- ̃5Œ0ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿü ̄ V2p"Jò Ú?
žß ¢óô @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ̧ÿìš @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @Ug°±cMa F"ãc5Ug°ý`: ±cMý3Ní_ÍvÐÐdd^(jí_Ívãc5 å¬ öÉHuô1!H,V3 ̃8G;^I~dgøpq"J$~* (-u>L ̈nNïÄ2u;?G...Q5Zàbyq...~çÜ$Ÿ.X1)7D§PÍxy-[&"/Ö5YFAW| ÈõÁ#u1h@EBZFÑGÿYq"}q>2D„cúgœpY~6" ®% 80 o< ́O û] $y q | k x S i ì' ó- ƒ4 •D ÷W «b Ì ̧ü y%)Þ)€2l=¶@/Bma3f_ja9+Ì:‹AŠ]df"pn ‹ Ð$ ãM €c up %u çu „v ï!¡$...%àe‰-Ý' *A*1<a[À\Ð_ãfæ{›~ €úè&Ã0d]mmCoøz#F u',ü/H?3B€NTMj×x"}Á~aõ#!-†-‹>gB÷MÆ| ÒRû%2/ìQõYòiæt§§&-A-&9§Kv[,cf3⁄4jûw ̧ýv(MFd`j 4- &7oFaNTMQa].
b"ËTsoÌ]×)ðDGA^ç^zjìp&31P:H;GLJQTùWMuU|MÅ1GAðIÚL'NyUbj3uX}Ëæ< ›'=¦>ÑH L@_cl9nå|ù׬'Ô-†H MûR«dÙlÃðà®(#:5 ́Nä]š^[t{Ëöœ(!)Â)U5ö<B2FGJáP bæcÀgt"oî*Ì.s<·NðSõy1 ŒD ýS `Z ^r 'v ty ‡!`5!9J!xL!(N!±U!@]!o]! ̧d!t!Ù"Õ""/"bD"ãE" (T"V"Ub"»f"in" ##ò2#¶8#o;#I#ÖU#Ô\#In#÷q#u#Æy#Ò#ê$t)$íK$ÍR$3⁄4_$ 5%...5%¶@%PE%o%þo% ̄{%3}%&Z&1+&Y/&æ6&È8&`? &eF&1H&gd&~h&"w&'ì'{ '7<'ä='P@' ̄I'μX'÷a'`h'Êo'¶~'›(f (35(lB(dJ(±b(to(šu(b~()§)Î.)3)¢=)j)n){*g*,**7*μ*p*`**%1*ž=*ÎH*U*8j*×2+e=+‚L+ ́T+NX+Z+œZ+Fe+2m+¡q+N,S,)o,é- ̧-ý-....- ̈6-8-1⁄2:-IJ-'R-Ÿi-áw-]y-È. ̄).0.^3.×H.îh.Út.v}.
v2/7/Ü7/G/I/- ]/ï`/eq/àz/ý0#0â0b40á90êV0Td0 ̄w0713%1#>1ñ^1‚p1¶w1'2 22h%2z%2Ž'2N2‹^2 ̄f2Ÿq2ñ3[3ë3ÊT3]r3êx3By3az3•|3á|3¬4E4I4kC4/J4SW4ßm4®y4o5î/5á95qA5>z5ˆ&6 16òU6B\6g6„77€7t7 7+)7- 7ƒ.7l?7Z7žk7TMz7Ð80 8i86B8›H8aL84U8Õ[8Dc8fl8¢n8}p8»t8v8"9›9g$9?97^9Kb9Zu9Õy9,{9è}93⁄4+:ˆi:àl:¥r:¡v:g';"3;<;cF;|d;... n;\x;Q<r<¥<s<Å<<##<Ž'<L.< 2<4<ä;<ÿD<®J<\<‡] <îi<Ùl<0t<«=J=`=Ç#=Ú.==1=ŠE=¦G=_X=3⁄4d=ýp=`~=¡>-+>O.>}4>Í:>;>>>âX>¡Y>‰]>&f>Çf>èo>Ê?v?3⁄4?5?Â? e,?õ0?Ü3?ÿE?)O?hm?¿m?_r?Es?3@»@@û3@ßa@•f@...n@}@ìAA2AÕ9AðGDGñGGÈSGUGVGÏ[GFcGgG[hG&HDHS)Hþ1HŠTIÊTIIpI+zI[{IyJÒJJ‹Wô?WÕFWîKW LWYW...YWÆ\W-iW•XX±X• X31XdIXšOX¥RX'qX1wXY ̧_YônY}ZëZž$ZÈ*ZK?ZˆIZÔJZ[àK[¢N[ÎR[°Y[k[[b[‚b[-c[rh[q[v[×\Y \ê\ö!\î6\¤j\@]þ ]-]€"]@$]ë,][3]2D]$F]jF]çH]J]·^Ì ^.
^£^„^Ÿ^C*^3⁄4/^7^;^«;^}g^ì_Û_-/_§:_5B_*E_>M_âR_·f_Ék_C` ̈`-`*`*2`ES`V`n`Îv`éx`uz`·`μ#a(aî0aú2a~@aÉaob×#b¢- bx.b1b=bÒ>bŸKb3Kb]WbgZb»bb„ebmb€tb4wb3⁄4cr%c&*c ̄@cDcTMQc ́Tcjc+dI2d±BdU[dgee)&eK\e_jeœveÐ{eÑf>ff8*f+1fÈ=fïDf Gf¿If\f2lfMnfAtf·ga!gR.g9=g%Cg:CgïwghÉ%hÇ*hμ2h|>hSAhThXh¤lhi"iéi‰i'i",iV;iNYi-{i j +jÅ,jSjítj‡|jjkçkòkð8k;EkSkžckbrkuk- {kB$l†$l ̧WlËclímLm{mÒmÁ3mÀ8mýCmKm@Qm§[m]$nC&nμ(n©3n©xnÌynÏo1⁄4o<"oμ$o31oàGo~Jo†PoîWoa\o7o p,pcpâp»p&px3p8p¤ApXp~_piqT'qÄqçCqYqÄeqHvqžwqx$rI4r,9rUDr:Or„Xr¡]r3⁄4krl sþsÖ)so4s ́MsÚmsus¬|s;tt-tμt"t€t t®4tμ7t>t!EtßNt ̈OtPtÑ]tü`t«dtÀktyqtØwtDuò uauÐ uÐ!u")uL1u"3uV7uG@u:[ucuÖ{u]~uJ vev›v©4v2AvøIvvcvpov'qv`vN weww)wTM2wþUwÑew*gw2xï xã&xý&xøHxax(hxly«ynyä,y 5yÇ7yb=yDOyDSyÀSyÖVy•]ymyfz zzd!zš'z+zy3záBzÖQzUz.
^z„_z8yz{„{Û- {n0{}5{4?{ëU{Æn{§x{N|3 |-||Ý |¦D|M|ÀN|V|'z|2}±}Ù}V<}×?}èD}{F}ŒI}%X}a}v}"v}~~R~(~0;~G~2^~Ðc~ ́l~Šx~ i %‚F†[jÄk¶n/uô€è€p+€o3€#7€iO€øP€ñQ€Qd€[}€9 cyk‚®'‚ø(‚4‚Õ@‚ÿJ‚ŸN‚„_‚m`‚Lg‚Hy‚äƒ5ƒ†6ƒ‚LƒXMƒ1⁄2WƒÔpƒï}ƒ÷„Ø „ü„ì5„^? „‹I„#h„ðq„Ù}„ö...-...ê5...ˆl...1⁄4l...n...¿s...u...¿†Ú#†'†‹.†œ<†¥B†«_†Hg†3m†>z†"z†j‡U‡¡‡uG‡"L‡ ́W‡ÞW‡Ùe‡g‡Ÿn‡]u‡ez‡ˆ1⁄4ˆ¢ˆçˆ?
ˆ,ˆê/ˆ 8ˆôFˆÛIˆxSˆÂdˆ»uˆâvˆ‰2‰'‰A"‰©6‰3⁄48‰)C‰_D‰èR‰œf‰o‰Êq‰ï{‰ŒŠíŠ?Š ̄Šb4ŠN7Šl7ŠFJŠòKŠZŠ"eŠù6‹ó;‹+`‹•b‹Ad‹S vŒÊ|Œ‰$F)"0 ̈4 SûXgaBŽÝ0Ž&QŽýtŽ¥+†>a] ̃]4_ca@bÓr{ ý#OKbrbÉsMt ́S 'C5'R5'*6'N@'Ã@'*A'V'9^'¶c'3p'mp'F{'s'p'8'·!'é"'!%'Š)'z;'1A'JC'†^'"5"h"Û"Ì&"TMA"RD"(a"ˆg"Äi"Õt"\"G "6""¬"ú2"Ò>"ÇE" ̃W"oe"ék"s"Fy"y•` •*"•ƒ/•F8•Ö8•¡:•Û=•Œ>•D•P[•xb•g• -1⁄2!-#-ç:- L-ÐQ-b-¶b-~-ƒ-3⁄4-J-Ö&-7/-E1-k5-jA-·P-Z-·f-;i-u-¦w-(|- ̃& ̃ ̃Ý ̃. ̃N% ̃ú( ̃õ1 ̃k7 ̃"7 ̃LV ̃ ́W ̃-} ̃ž ̃TM†TM<TMÑTM6 TMÁ&TM[6TM3DTM¤ZTMšO>šKš^š-qš›»#›B&› S›9j›1l›•œWœœ5œ|œ8 œ§ œ§!œÉ&œÇ=œÕgœX{œ ́}œk~œù $0 7a=*@CNSRdwî~1⁄4 žQžA@žòdžÑrž·tž+yžd{žÎŸ« ŸiŸ(.ŸiIŸkŸ•{ŸÙ T 38 U ‰c Ù¡e¡C¡2¡®g¡Ko¡Ö¢h¢â&¢Ø+¢i0¢ 7¢Œ?
¢E¢ÞV¢‡e¢)f¢¦}¢Ü}¢Ž~¢m£°I££N£hx£Þz££¤¤&(¤¿(¤k,¤Á:¤dO¤¢S¤|_¤Yc¤ e¤6z¤û¥1⁄4¥"¥‰+¥[¥2b¥àn¥l ¦À6¦D8¦ï9¦„K¦g¦ûm¦Ûu¦¢w¦Â§=(§ú5§„<§ÿF§6N§Ng§Nl§ n§ø* ̈1+ ̈ý, ̈ 6 ̈3L ̈0g ̈Æo ̈¦s ̈év ̈A©Ñ©Š©9©*H©g a±a2$a|&az9a®AaÈEa¶Ja?Nafa~ja®«É«"«&«$M« S«ŒZ«|\« ́]«}v«&x«m%¬1¬ê?¬CN¬ j¬Ýw¬Á{¬'>iDMjm ®®b®U,®°6®Y®ób®ïq®ôs®‚y® ̄ñ! ̄É( ̄¬/ ̄8; ̄ÑB ̄D ̄äU ̄μ\ ̄¿^ ̄ï_ ̄tt ̄...{ ̄Á°°¿°ø°H#°$'°îJ°X°/]°‰]°Gf°{°3{°õ|°±g ± ±¬± a±ðh±ãj±\r±x{± 2Ì+212B32,=2'@2#Q29S2I\2ò\2ä3Å3-3· 3#3å(3Š83#C3öa3x3; ́- ́à ́Ç ́Õ ́1⁄2 ́:& ́ö' ́à( ́ø3 ́> ́A ́TV ́_ ́âd ́çg ́oq ́øq ́-x ́ μv μl%μê]μ÷^μƒlμ1|μ1⁄4~μ ¶ ¶¦¶ø"¶L$¶|$¶±%¶á@¶ND¶%I¶ ̈S¶N¶è·!·S1·±6·1C·P·o ̧ê3 ̧Î9 ̧õG ̧-I ̧VJ ̧áQ ̧äS ̧J` ̧Zc ̧‡p ̧É1Ð,11F1ÂP1ûc1x1| 1aooo±o00o70o8oà<o‚Ho¦mo»6.
»Ë4»fX»c_»»¡1⁄4 "1⁄4"A1⁄4•K1⁄4L1⁄4ZU1⁄4}x1⁄4„1⁄2581⁄2H1⁄2œZ1⁄21⁄4Z1⁄2÷Z1⁄2bm1⁄2Ât1⁄2]v1⁄2"w1⁄23⁄4D3⁄4§'3⁄4Ä33⁄4383⁄4x<3⁄4 ?3⁄4e?3⁄46Y3⁄4Àh3⁄4TM¿)¿È¿72¿t5¿M¿\¿"q¿ÓÀÿÀ Àe<ÀLTÀÝVÀWÀogÀÜpÀ2sÀÁ7ÁÊÁ%Á<ÁdKÁ¥PÁÕ]Á'eÁŸeÁ£gÁ„tÁ"tÁ$~ÁÝ ÂŒ6Â+AÂÅJ‹NÂ_ÂkÂ8l†lÂwä)Ã_*Ãï@ÃwDÃaFÃPUà Äü#Ä ̄&ÄTM=ÄÉ?Ä(CÄGDÄ`SÄ ́[ÄêiÄênÄùtÄ»|ÄÅ=Å‚,ÅÉMÅTÅÆlÅT}ÅO Æ#ÆÆY!Æ0Æ ̃1Æò4Æx>ÆÙBÆbÆqxÆÝyÆ|ÆÞÇÇ>*Çê@ÇžHÇÞQÇrZÇËZÇS[Ç`Ç=`ÇíiÇ1⁄4ÈÌ Èb0ÈEAÈMDÈMÈRRÈøUÈxbÈÞdÈ'ÉäÉÜÉÉ#&É1⁄41É°6Éá:ÉSLÉ~NɇTÉ?oÉÊqÊyÊÇ1ÊRÊxbÊždÊ}ÊÄËw Ë@Ë0Ë3⁄4:˧>ËAË.DË`Ë4jËetË·xË&Ë1⁄2 Ì=Ì<[ÌGdÌYiÌ*jÌ ́vÌ‹Í8ÍŠÍÅ!Íâ,Í=5Íœ7ÍPDÍÀGÍÆGÍJÍ£[Í(kÍxvÍ~Í3αÎY$Îc%Î"0ÎÜ<Îæ]Îá| ÎϦÏî$Ï.ÏÀ9Ï_?ÏcBÏkHÏûKÏoPÏ1⁄4iÏmÏTvÏ*yϬyÏ(Ðö"Ð ̈'ÐF-Ð/Ðû:ÐßCÐ|bÐtrÐÿrÐØvÐÐ1⁄4Ñ MѬ\Ñ¢^ÑðrÑKuÑâÒçÒW#Òμ<Ò-AÒ±IÒYÒüiÒøsÒ¢ÒùÓMÓ¦FÓHÓôIÓ8NÓŠNÓLPÓ|Ó ̧Ôl Ô¶#Ôñ.ÔÒQÔäjÔýmÔvÔ.
Õ‰1Õ CÕ1⁄4MÕ1TÕÌbÕŸrÕÞsÕþvÕìÕMÖö Öû!Ö *Ö°GÖbHÖAOÖ'gÖÂmÖ÷yÖý{Ö9Ö¥×Ñ&×()×»,×\2×ã;×Í@×éM× T×\]׌_×ãi×1u×w×óy×"Ø¢ØRZØaØbØÙsØTM)ÙñYÙ×hÙÚR6ÚF8ÚoDÚšPÚÑcÚ ̈eÚélÚrÚ"~Ú ÛÛTM!Û6Û«9Û1⁄4mÛ›tÛZÜ]cÜ>yܧzÜ*}ÜÜ ÝúÝÓ2ÝE6ÝPPÝ*gÝ>jÝ6ÞD:ÞƒEÞä«@äbGäUZägäräÃzäàåç(åù)å¤,åU/åq<å©Iå[tå}å2æ32æ¥@æKænNæpRæTMxæ| æ"}ææμçmç&UçkçŒwç1xçμxçqè3è-7èvCèoIè¥jèZèéMééÐé+éõ+é ̃BéãJé£Mé·MéséÅê¢ê ê-êIê]/ê@1êv9ê:^êraê...ëÏëUëëCëB8ë+]ë†^ëdë×ì» ì¶ì9ìJ@ì|Eìå]ìqìí÷ící!(íEFížhíÔní-uínîc î‰î‹4î»>î§KîâKîîiî°ï=ï×%ïý)ï(]ï`ïŽmïŸnïqï ̃ðœ8ðJMðl]ðbð°ñ·ñ^4ñRñ`dñÞdñXmñNòö0òu2ò?Jò†Yò3sòæsòóbóü#óP+óÎ6ó-Ió1Xó1⁄2`óióljókóñkó1wóá~ó2ôôTôæôô`ôŸôô3ôË3ôŠ6ôÏNôQôÆaôš{ôiôõ õõ24õÄ7õnLõQMõNõJWõÆ]õGcõÁ{õ»öööÐ)öa+öí.öÔ0öñMöpQöμaö'cö8{öBöq÷÷÷UB÷âT÷®t÷ÐøTMø< øfø+ø 3ø ̈CøÏCø Fø...
Iø`PøkWø§lø3møÏùÎ'ù12ùË=ù[_ùaùˆiù¦qù tù(uùÃ|ùIú1 ú6úN$ú2-ú?úßRú¤ZúÜ|ú ́~úûTûmûû[)ûp.ûxYû8fûŽüîüüü'ü...!ü®8üX>üDüEü ̈küÂküJnüˆwü;ý ýýè"ý9ý>Sý§Wý(`ýzý‡þ' þê!þä@þ‰AþKKþâNþu\þŸ`þ"kþÀwþÔÿ ÿ9ÿS$ÿ3⁄4-ÿ3⁄4@ÿèCÿÆHÿëbÿYpÿ'ïw%x)zQD9]§0ÿ@€RvRv1⁄4)fRvRv(zð@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGÿ:àCxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialK,‡ŸBookman Old StyleUArial Unicode MSArial"1ˆðÐhXó'Š‚6Gà3gÖ0Eg>ÜEg>Ü!ðppx ́‚‚4d$y$y2ƒqðÜHXðÿ?äÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÙ 2ÿÿTHE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ACMS & PSS SECTIONUSER þÿà... ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0Œ ̃1⁄4Èäð <HT `lt|„äTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ACMS & PSS SECTIONNormalUSER470Microsoft Office Word@ ãw*@\<×ÚÎ@Ü®L4Ï@à€î§ÐEgþÿÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®0hp„Œ"œ¤¬ ́1⁄4 ÄêähighcourtÜ>$yæTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ATitle !"
#$%&'()*+,- ./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]þÿÿÿ_`abcdeþÿÿÿghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„...†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ''""þÿÿÿ- - ̃TMš›œþÿÿÿžŸ ¡¢£¤þÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿ ̈þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF`ü0Œî§Ða€Data ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^1Tableÿÿÿÿf9]WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ;oSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ•DocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCompObj ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.